Rochedale Development Partners v Brisbane City Council

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rochedale Development Partners v Brisbane City Council [2025] QPEC 16

PARTIES:

ROCHEDALE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
(Appellant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3482/24

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against infrastructure charges notice

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2025

JUDGE:

McDonnell DCJ

ORDER:

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – APPEAL
AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES NOTICE – where the appellant was issued an amended infrastructure charges notice – where the appellant seeks a recalculation of the amount of the establishment cost of the trunk infrastructure under section 137 of the Planning Act 2016 – where the appellant appeals against the amended infrastructure charges notice – where the valuer was required comply with the valuation methodology in section 25(2)(a) of the Charges Resolution – whether the valuer made an error in applying the methodology – whether the respondent made an error by deciding to give the amended infrastructure charges notice

CASES:

Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Highways (No 1) (1973) 32 LGRA 170

Douglas Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2023] QPEC 28

Jakel Pty Ltd & Ors v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 21

LEGISLATION:

Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) ss 43, 45(1)(c)

Planning Act 2016 (Qld) ss 137, Schedule 1, Table 1, Item 4

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

L Walker for the Appellant
M Batty KC and R Yuen for the Respondent

HWL Ebsworth for the Appellant
City Legal for the Respondent

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against an Amended Infrastructure Charges Notice issued by the respondent on 26 November 2024 relating to the land at 32 Farley Road, Rochedale, which is more particularly described as Lot 2 on RP59061 (Land).

2. The appellant alleges there is non-compliance with the infrastructure charges resolution resulting in an error in the establishment cost for the land infrastructure (trunk park) items (Land Establishment Cost) stated in the Amended Infrastructure Charges Notice.  The respondent says there has been compliance.  For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that the appellant has established there is an error.    

The nature of the appeal

1. Schedule 1, Table 1, Item 4 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act) states:

   “An appeal may be made against an infrastructure charges notice on 1 or more of the following grounds–
   (a) the notice involved an error relating to–
   …
   (iii) an offset or refund …”.

2. Section 43 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) (PECA) provides that “Subject to any relevant enabling Act, an appeal to the P&E Court is by way of hearing anew”.

3. As observed by Kefford DCJ Douglas Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2023] QPEC 28 at [11]:

   “In this case, the nature of the appeal is to be construed in the context that the right of appeal is limited. The “enabling Act”, ie, the Planning Act 2016, confers judicial…